LH.com Lost !

Pred · 04-28-2008, 03:58 AM

Reverse hijacking is on the increase guys.
LH.com has just been lost by elequa.

Feel bad for him as this is a terrible decision by wipo imho and it raises questions about their integrity and conduct imo

More Here

-REECE- · 04-28-2008, 04:07 AM

WOW... I guess I won't be buying an LL.com afterall

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/462891-lh-com-lost.html

These panelists have WAY too much power imho... 2 letter domains + generics should be off limits. Makes no sense that anyone should be "entitled" to an LL.com that could stand for God knows how many other things...

If these things keep going up in value, I really wonder how long it'll be before we have a bunch of companies attempting to reverse hijack these merely because it's cheaper than legitimately acquiring them... With the cost of filing a complaint, one might as well file a complaint first and inquire about purchasing the domain afterwards if unsuccessful.

A very sad day for domainers...

bricio · 04-28-2008, 04:10 AM

wipo

Pred · 04-28-2008, 04:12 AM

agreed, he turned down offers for 1 million in past
make no mistake he doesn't need money, not the point, but makes clearer that it's not bad faith, just that he's a rich guy and likes collecting domains. his call imo

same way if you own 20 van goghs and keep them in your shed, it's your call, you dont expect the Dutch government to take you to court for abusing their heritage, yet that would be more serious

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

More Here

-REECE- · 04-28-2008, 04:18 AM

It's ridiculous... If someone wants to collect paintings, property, shares of stocks, currency, etc they're free to do it, but if you don't put a $1M domain to good use, you lose it? Seriously wtf?

Originally Posted by arnie

agreed, he turned down offers for 1 million in past
make no mistake he doesn't need money, not the point, but makes clearer that it's not bad faith, just that he's a rich guy and likes collecting domains. his call imo

same way if you own 20 van goghs and keep them in your shed, it's your call, you dont expect the Dutch government to take you to court for abusing their heritage, yet that would be more serious

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891
More Here

Pred · 04-28-2008, 04:20 AM

Agreed Reece

Also, he would have paid a lot of money to acquire, they're using this against him, they say one thing against him is he wasn't the original registrant?!! wtf

seriously we should mass complain about these freaks who made the decision, friggin shylocks and fraudsters.

whats more German firms are notorious for underhand tactics

bricio · 04-28-2008, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by arnie

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

companies know wipo is the cheapest way to have a name can cost thousands or even millions and some have been successful there

i am worried because this shows maybe one day (and i think it isnt so far) who have the money will always win

-REECE- · 04-28-2008, 04:23 AM

That's what I fear too Bricio. It's a sad day when one has to worry that what they own can be taken away from them at anytime for some made-up-BS reason.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

What's next? Is someone gonna wipo CNET for not putting com.com to good use?

Originally Posted by bricio

companies know wipo is the cheapest way to have a name can cost thousands or even millions and some have been successful there

i am worried because this shows maybe one day (and i think it isnt so far) who have the money will always win

michaeldotcom · 04-28-2008, 04:33 AM

That's precisely what worries me when it comes to very short domains, especially 2 or 3 letter ones.

I remember that we discussed recently on NP the purchase of NTV.tv on Sedo. I pointed out that it might be risky as there are many huge tv channels which are called NTV (in Russia, in the US, in Germany, in Japan, in India, etc).
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

Almost all very short domains are abbreviations of company names, many of which are trademarked.

The fact that these very short domains are abbreviations of company names is precisely what gives them a very high value, especially when it's a .com.

I would definitely advise anybody who owns a LL.com or LLL.com to develop it and not park it. Parking those very valuable names is the best way to lose them in a trademark dispute, especially as I'm pretty sure that these disputes on very short domains will be seen more and more often in the future.

sdsinc · 04-28-2008, 04:36 AM

I could see a lawsuit looming over this.

Pred · 04-28-2008, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kath

I could see a lawsuit looming over this.

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too.
love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

StoneRoses · 04-28-2008, 04:43 AM

This is an absoloute disgrace imo.

michaeldotcom · 04-28-2008, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by arnie

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too. love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

Well, British Airways own ba.com, American Airlines own aa.com, so Lufthansa were jealous and wanted their LL.com too.

Well it's quite obvious that this should lead to a lawsuit. There's just too much at stake. It should be quite interesting to follow...

-REECE- · 04-28-2008, 04:47 AM

As would I

????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

Someone has to teach these POS they can't just treat us like dirt, screw us out of the domains we legitimately own, and label us cybersquatters...

Originally Posted by arnie

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too.
love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

michaeldotcom · 04-28-2008, 05:00 AM

What's interesting is that, if you check on WIPO, there are actually quite a few companies who have trademarked "LH" worldwide, including the Swiss luxury jeweler Leon Hatot (part of the huge Swatch Group).

How can Lufthansa call this cybersquatting when other companies have trademarked this very same abbreviation too ?

bricio · 04-28-2008, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by Reece

Someone has to teach these POS they can't just treat us like dirt, screw us out of the domains we legitimately own, and label us cybersquatters...

they treat us like dirt because they see us like that
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

people out there dont know domainers, they know big companies and when they do wrong things they are in the news and of course this gives us all a bad reputationse those who lead this industry should be have the

those who are the most influent here should conduct their business fairly but sometimes it doesnt happen, so those out there know us cybersquatters

RJ · 04-28-2008, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by michaeldotcom

What's interesting is that, if you check on WIPO, there are actually quite a few companies who have trademarked "LH" worldwide, including the Swiss luxury jeweler Leon Hatot (part of the huge Swatch Group).

How can Lufthansa call this cybersquatting when other companies have trademarked this very same abbreviation too ?

The panel found that FMA did not have any legitimate rights in the mark. If Leon Hatot owned it, the complaint would not have succeeded.

The lawsuit is already pending. This will be a very interesting case to follow.

accent · 04-28-2008, 05:14 AM

Fortunately Elequa has the funds to fight this in Federal court and hopefully will win there. He had already brought suit before the UDRP decision, perhaps an indication that he expected the ruling. He may have smelled a rat.

The question is what can be done about an out-of-control WIPO agency? It is the same issue as the Snowe bill - the potential of a daisy chain of companies each hijacking a domain from the previous owner.

There need not be foul play in this decision, ignorance and dislike of domainers would suffice. Many view all domaining as "cybersquating" and parked pages as the internet equivalent of litter.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

StoneRoses · 04-28-2008, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by accentnepal

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

Then they would have got what they wanted and would have won.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

Domaining is perfectly legal and it's about time we were stopped being treated like social lepors.

RJ · 04-28-2008, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by accentnepal

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

Definitely... don't park them, and never offer to sell them.

bmugford · 04-28-2008, 05:20 AM

This is a load of crap. It is unfortunate the domain was lost, however I think the court battle is exactly what is needed to end this crap once and for all.

I think in these kind of cases, even if the ruling goes against the domain owner, the winner should still be forced to pay fair market value like with eminent domain.

This is just a wholesale theft of a $1M+ domain.

michaeldotcom · 04-28-2008, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by -RJ-

The panel found that FMA did not have any legitimate rights in the mark. If Leon Hatot owned it, the complaint would not have succeeded.

Very true indeed.
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891

I guess the best thing to do for LL.com (or possibly even LLL.com) owners is to trademark these domains, don't you think so ?

It's too expensive and useless to trademark every single domain, but I think it's something to consider seriously for very valuable domains, especially two or three letter ones which are almost always abbreviations of company names (which means a very high risk of trademark dispute).

-REECE- · 04-28-2008, 05:27 AM

I hate to sound paranoid, but with how fast generics and short domains are rising in value, how much longer can we expect it to be before we start seeing corporations attempting to bribe panelists?

Pred · 04-28-2008, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Reece

I hate to sound paranoid, but with how fast generics and short domains are rising in value, how much longer can we expect it to be before we start seeing corporations attempting to bribe panelists?

i'm sure most will say it has happened before
????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891
think how connected politicians and heads of industry are?
decisions made in houses of parliament in UK all the time where Lords are directors in companies and all know each other etc
sure same goes on here

kev · 04-28-2008, 06:05 AM

Wow! this is simply disgraceful

This is the equivalent of someone stealing $1,000,000 off of someone.

One of the worst decisions WIPO has ever made.

04-28-2008, 03:58 AM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
Pred Account Closed Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,713	LH.com Lost ! Reverse hijacking is on the increase guys. LH.com has just been lost by elequa. Feel bad for him as this is a terrible decision by wipo imho and it raises questions about their integrity and conduct imo More Here

04-28-2008, 04:36 AM	#10 (permalink)
sdsinc Domains my Dominion Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Web 1.0 Posts: 9,532	I could see a lawsuit looming over this. __________________ NameNewsletter.com - free lists of available domain names ZoneFiles.net (beta) - ccTLD and gTLD droplists

04-28-2008, 04:43 AM	#12 (permalink)
StoneRoses Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: PetInsurance.tv Posts: 2,349	This is an absoloute disgrace imo. __________________ PetInsurance.tv Pet Blog

04-28-2008, 05:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
accent Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 2,295	Fortunately Elequa has the funds to fight this in Federal court and hopefully will win there. He had already brought suit before the UDRP decision, perhaps an indication that he expected the ruling. He may have smelled a rat. The question is what can be done about an out-of-control WIPO agency? It is the same issue as the Snowe bill - the potential of a daisy chain of companies each hijacking a domain from the previous owner. There need not be foul play in this decision, ignorance and dislike of domainers would suffice. Many view all domaining as "cybersquating" and parked pages as the internet equivalent of litter. ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891 The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them. __________________ Domains for sale For List Of Country Code Domains Jewelry of Tibet and Nepal TibetanJewelry.mobi Tibetan Symbols Om Pyramids Ancient Egyptian Secrets Ancient Mystery Eden Shakti

04-28-2008, 06:05 AM	#25 (permalink)
kev KevinMacpherson.co.uk Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Dundee, Scotland Posts: 3,914	Wow! this is simply disgraceful This is the equivalent of someone stealing $1,000,000 off of someone. One of the worst decisions WIPO has ever made. __________________ ★ World's Largest One Letter Domain Portfolio for sale ★

04-28-2008, 04:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
-REECE- NamePros Expert Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 8,996	WOW... I guess I won't be buying an LL.com afterall ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/462891-lh-com-lost.html These panelists have WAY too much power imho... 2 letter domains + generics should be off limits. Makes no sense that anyone should be "entitled" to an LL.com that could stand for God knows how many other things... If these things keep going up in value, I really wonder how long it'll be before we have a bunch of companies attempting to reverse hijack these merely because it's cheaper than legitimately acquiring them... With the cost of filing a complaint, one might as well file a complaint first and inquire about purchasing the domain afterwards if unsuccessful. A very sad day for domainers...

04-28-2008, 04:10 AM	#3 (permalink)
bricio Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 2,553	wipo

04-28-2008, 04:12 AM	THREAD STARTER #4 (permalink)
Pred Account Closed Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,713	agreed, he turned down offers for 1 million in past make no mistake he doesn't need money, not the point, but makes clearer that it's not bad faith, just that he's a rich guy and likes collecting domains. his call imo same way if you own 20 van goghs and keep them in your shed, it's your call, you dont expect the Dutch government to take you to court for abusing their heritage, yet that would be more serious maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on More Here

04-28-2008, 04:20 AM	THREAD STARTER #6 (permalink)
Pred Account Closed Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,713	Agreed Reece Also, he would have paid a lot of money to acquire, they're using this against him, they say one thing against him is he wasn't the original registrant?!! wtf seriously we should mass complain about these freaks who made the decision, friggin shylocks and fraudsters. whats more German firms are notorious for underhand tactics

04-28-2008, 04:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
michaeldotcom Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 812	That's precisely what worries me when it comes to very short domains, especially 2 or 3 letter ones. I remember that we discussed recently on NP the purchase of NTV.tv on Sedo. I pointed out that it might be risky as there are many huge tv channels which are called NTV (in Russia, in the US, in Germany, in Japan, in India, etc). ????: NamePros.com http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?t=462891 Almost all very short domains are abbreviations of company names, many of which are trademarked. The fact that these very short domains are abbreviations of company names is precisely what gives them a very high value, especially when it's a .com. I would definitely advise anybody who owns a LL.com or LLL.com to develop it and not park it. Parking those very valuable names is the best way to lose them in a trademark dispute, especially as I'm pretty sure that these disputes on very short domains will be seen more and more often in the future.

04-28-2008, 05:00 AM	#15 (permalink)
michaeldotcom Account Closed Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 812	What's interesting is that, if you check on WIPO, there are actually quite a few companies who have trademarked "LH" worldwide, including the Swiss luxury jeweler Leon Hatot (part of the huge Swatch Group). How can Lufthansa call this cybersquatting when other companies have trademarked this very same abbreviation too ?

04-28-2008, 05:20 AM	#21 (permalink)
bmugford www.DataCube.com Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,815	This is a load of crap. It is unfortunate the domain was lost, however I think the court battle is exactly what is needed to end this crap once and for all. I think in these kind of cases, even if the ruling goes against the domain owner, the winner should still be forced to pay fair market value like with eminent domain. This is just a wholesale theft of a $1M+ domain.

04-28-2008, 05:27 AM	#23 (permalink)
-REECE- NamePros Expert Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 8,996	I hate to sound paranoid, but with how fast generics and short domains are rising in value, how much longer can we expect it to be before we start seeing corporations attempting to bribe panelists?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)